Phonearl Good start, but then it gets ruined

ShangLuda Admirable film.

MoPoshy Absolutely brilliant

TrueHello Fun premise, good actors, bad writing. This film seemed to have potential at the beginning but it quickly devolves into a trite action film. Ultimately it's very boring.

bth2004 I'm having a hard time making my mind up about this one. Considering the subject matter, I should be all over this with resounding praise, but the execution gives me pause. Let me go into specs and see if I can make sense of it.First, acting: scattered. Some of the actors were legitimately good (Samantha Noble probably gave the best performance on the whole). Others were obviously bad (Ahriman was forcing it way too much). Most of the others were somewhere in between--the actor playing Michael/Sammael being one of them. So, on the whole, I'd call the acting forgettable.Effects: pretty good for a low-budget film. I think my favorite part of the effects side was the Gabriel/Ahriman battle. I was legitimately impressed with that part. With a film like this, though, you learn to gloss over the effects because it is done on a low budget.Plot: this is where it really gets iffy for me. The lore/theology/whatever term you want to use--it was rather noncommittal. That is a little annoying for me. Yes, there were good angels and evil angels, but the idea of them coming to Purgatory and taking truly mortal forms, with all the emotional baggage that comes with it, is kinda strange. Plus, the hierarchy in the spiritual world is hazy. There is no true mention of God or Lucifer or any being that would have the authority to rule Heaven or Hell. They don't even call places Heaven or Hell. The angels, or Arks, just refer to "The Light". Sounds kinda New- Age or something as opposed to a place where angels reside. There is barely any mention of a place for demons--the Fallen.Maybe they were trying to make it easier to swallow for viewers who don't have any spiritual beliefs or something, but I find it a little annoying; it is already based loosely on known theological doctrine, so why not make it more accurate according to the existing theology/lore/whatever?Also, as far as plotting goes, I don't really get the point of throwing in the Gabriel/Jade sex scene--no service to the plot (after having gone through a fury-driven battle with Asmodeus because of the other Arks getting killed, having sex with the Ark who lost her wings is not going to help him with his quest); and it just adds to the confused/noncommittal spiritual law problem I have with it.Finally, the ending is rather strange as well: in order to remember all that has happened and to understand how it happened, Gabriel "falls from grace" and becomes a true mortal--it's a dark rip-off of "City of Angels" with Nicholas Cage and Meg Ryan.So, all in all, I call it a confused effort. Nice try, I suppose; but it was not solid enough to be worth a second go.

Hollywoodrulez Most Australian director/writers have a certain look on there films which is why Australia is no Hollywood. That said Gabriel is an Australian film in the style of a dark Hollywood action horror. It's easy to see why this film done very well in the united states as it's not all about the country of Australia or it leaves out the Australian feel which kind of makes most Australian films the same or comparable to each other. Gabriel is not comparable to any Australian films but it has compared to Constantine an American film. Shane abbess is the kind of Australian director/writer that I inspire to be. I want to make action/graphic novel films. As an Australian my work would be very American and not a typical Australian film much like Gabriel. So that is why Gabriel worked on many levels for me.

tedg I came to this because it was Australian, a first film and supposedly risky. It has been some time since a young Australian filmmaker has affected me, and I always put then toward the top of the list.This, dear friends is simply some yelling. It is no "Ink."But it got me wondering. Movies are all about satisfying urges. Well, everything is, but the tokens are explicitly here for you to see. But the constraints of the medium and market morph those urges. So what you see is not what you wanted, but what you can get. Over time, you build this dissonance because you live in the world created by constraints.Here is what I mean. We all wonder about how the world works. So we want cosmologies in our art, grand organizing principles. We want to know what the rules are. So we have stories with grand conspiracies, or mythical worlds with an order, usually bad and good. Or even just a guy with super powers or abilities who wins because he is attuned in a world where justice flows.But the medium has only a few human activities that are cinematic. One of these is fighting, especially with guns and knives. If you are making a movie on the cheap, you'll have to forgo the standard fireball explosions, usually with the hero walking away slowly.As a result, we end up with bizarre situations where cosmological forces are shoved into fight movies. This is not the worst example; I saw this with "TMNT," but it is pretty obvious because the movie itself is so unrewarding.Ted's Evaluation -- 1 of 3: You can find something better to do with this part of your life.

Rathko Australian Dark Fantasy-SciFi movie in which Good and Evil fight it out in the sprawling slums of Purgatory for the souls of those awaiting judgment. On the side of the Light is Gabriel. Fighting for Team Darkness is Sammael. Necessity is the mother of invention. Like George Miller with 'Mad Max', Abbess is forced by a minuscule budget to rely on strong storytelling, creative design, and superior performances to craft his movie. And while the results may not have the long lasting influence of Miller's work, they are astonishing. The movie possesses a striking visual richness thanks to the work of a talented designer and cinematographer, and just as Mel Gibson stood out in 'Mad Max', so Andy Whitman stalks through 'Gabriel' with real A-list charisma. The film is not without its faults: while the story is strong, the screenplay itself is structurally sloppy and has some serious pacing issues; head demon, Sammael, looks like the lead singer in a 'Ramones' tribute band; and the rooftop climax is an unapologetic shot-for-shot remake of 'Blade Runner'. The presence of a character with bleach-blond dreadlocks forces the deduction of yet another point. They looked ridiculous in 'Matrix'; they look ridiculous here. Yet despite these misgivings, there is something undeniably infectious about the passion and commitment that everyone brings to the project. Personally, I can't wait for the sequels.